Setting difference... Is there a difference??

[rickp1]

This might seem like a silly question but one that I've been mulling over for a bit now as I'm taking pictures.
As I shoot away either during the day or at night I find myself questioning my camera settings. What I mean by this is as I set a shutter speed for example i tend to dial a speed that gets a good center reading in my histogram but sometimes there can be a few stops difference between acceptable setting. The same goes for choosing other settings like ISO, metering or aperture. Sometimes I can't tell the difference between some of these settings.

So the reason for the question is that as I chose and dial in the setting and get the "acceptable result" i get a feeling of sloppiness in my choosing the settings. I guess because there's not an exact right and wrong setting, and that's what bothers me.

So in situations like that, what is the preferred setting or mindset (for lack of a better word). I know there's no right or wrong setting because it somewhat subjective but what can I do about the sloppiness feeling. Is that normal in amateur or new photographers?

Thanks
R.

[zona5101]

I’m not sure I entirely follow but I think there might be two concerns: 1) equivalency and 2) latitude. Exposure settings that are equivalent shouldn’t be a concern. Choose the combination that suits your purpose. For example iso 200 1/250sec f8 same as iso 400 1/2000 f4 [+1stop in iso, -3stops on shutter, +2 on fstop] So you’d choose based on your need for dof or action stopping power. The other idea of latitude is that the sensor is flexible enough to allow you to get “close enough” on your exposure that you have a usable image. This was true with film as well. Technically there is still one exposure for the subject you chose that is optimum…but even that can be influenced by what you think optimum is and how the choice of exposure for one part of the image affects the rest of the areas of the image. Overall. If you are capturing images that have a nice wide tonal range where highlights are not blown and shadows have detail then I think you needn’t worry.

[rickp1]

you know i was afraid i wasn't being clear enough on this, so let me give it another try.
I guess i'm not comfortable with the fact that there's not a specific setting for taking specific pictures. The reality is that you have a wide set of choices to get good results from your camera. So the fact that I dont have a specific setting gives me an insecure feeling when choosing my settings. I hope that's a better explanation. It's hard to put down on paper what I'm trying to express.

Let say I'm taking a picture and I dial in ISO 250 and I take the picture, then I do the same with ISO 400. The difference is minimal is any for example, that's when I start to question myself and my settings because I'm not sure which setting is better. The same thing applies to other setting like I mentioned before.
Having a wide set of choices and not a specific choice make me uneasy since I don't know which is really better. Is this clear as mud???? LOL

[zona5101]

i bet you organize the tools in your garage on peg hooks...
So yes there is some latitude in settings and even though two exposures may look the same there is probably a subtle difference you might not notice. For example shooting at iso 250 then 400, probably wouldn't notice much...thats under 1 stop of difference. Your camera sensor can handle that just fine...but you might see a difference if you could look at the extreme highlight and shadow ...or if you increase the magnification significantly. Overall if your pics are looking good to you, then there isn't much need to worry about it...

[Nicole]

Maybe part of it is really understanding the effect of the different factors. For example, ISO 400 is going to be grainier than ISO 250. So when you're deciding what ISO to use, one consideration might be how much grain is OK in your image. When you're choosing aperture, a small aperture (large f/#) will give you a greater depth of field, and more of the scene will be in focus. A larger aperture (small f/#) will make less of your scene in focus, so you can separate your subject from the background more easily. And shutter speed, consider if your subject is moving and if you want to freeze motion or show motion. Slower shutter speeds will slow motion, faster ones will freeze it.

I realise that this might seem overly basic. But when reading your comment I thought about your statement

Having a wide set of choices and not a specific choice make me uneasy since I don't know which is really better.

So, yes, there are a lot of choices, but if you think about how you want your image to come out, the choices start becoming more clear. It's not necessarily a specific set of settings you'll be after, but a general set. So, if you're going to take a portrait, you might thing: low ISO to avoid noise, moderate shutter speed so I don't have camera shake, and wide-ish aperture so that the person is in focus, but the background isn't. Then with some experience you'll get to the point where you know some approximate settings to start with.

But learning what differences the settings actually make is probably a really good start Best of luck!

[rickp1]

That's funny, yeah i can be somewhat anal in some respects, LOL!!!

I understand the settings and luckily you expressed my point for me. Within the type of picture I'm taking the various setting are what get to me. You explained it best with your quote about not looking for a specific set of setting but a general set of settings for what your taking pictures of. That was what I was looking for. I know it seems like common sense but at this point I don't have the experience to make that assumption especially with great tools like this site.

So thank you both for your time and help.

Rick

[SandeeWig]

I'm not sure if this will help much at all, but when I was first trying to learn (and train my brain on) the exposure triangle, I would always start out at the basic sunny 16 rule: ISO 100, SS 1/100 and f/16.

After taking a test shot, I'd adjust my settings accordingly to achieve proper exposure. Generally trying to leave my ISO as low as possible, I'd see if I can get adequate SS and DOF for my subject by only changing those two settings (ss and aperture).

Hope that helps!

[LeeR]

Could I make a suggestion? I know that there are times when you can change the settings on your camera a good deal without making a marked difference in you histogram, so what if you were to take several shots at various exposures to see for yourself what the differences are? I believe you may come to a new understanding of what is going on inside your camera. Some of those minor adjustments don't amount to much, but others can make a profound difference. The only way to know is to try it for yourself.

[RichardTaylor]

Here are a couple of examples.
Larger pics are on my flickr photostream. Just click on any of the pics to go there.

1. Both exposures are "correct"
(1A) However this one I have selected a slowish shutter speed, 1/125, so the movement of the car against the background and the blurred wheels show motion. I was panning.


(1b) Here the camera was put in sports mode and it selected a shutter speed of 1/800 second. My shooting technique was the same.


Another example where both exposures are correct.

(2A) Shallow DOF (F2 with a 135mm lens on a 1.6 crop camera).



(2B) A lot of DOF (F8 on a Canon G11 P&S)


Selecting the exposure combination is more than a technical decision it is also an artistic decision. As Lee says try it your self.

[rickp1]

this brings up a question. When freezing motion like you did, how do you get the pictures to not come out dark with such a high shutter speed. Do oyu change the exposure or the ISO?

R.